http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-accident.html

Does it seem to anyone else that some details are missing from that
article?



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 25/08/2011 03:00, John Rumm wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-accident.html


Does it seem to anyone else that some details are missing from that
article?

You mean how did the thing start moving in exactly the right way to go
up his arse? Screams stupid workplace prank goes horribly wrong to me...

On Aug 25, 4:00*am, Clive George wrote:
On 25/08/2011 03:00, John Rumm wrote:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news.../8719851/Elect...

Does it seem to anyone else that some details are missing from that
article?

You mean how did the thing start moving in exactly the right way to go
up his arse? Screams stupid workplace prank goes horribly wrong to me...

Yup. Usually those "things up bottoms" stories are misguided solo
sexual activities. But this one sounds like an idiot nearly killed
someone with an airline.

On Aug 25, 6:38*am, " wrote:
On Aug 25, 4:00*am, Clive George wrote:

On 25/08/2011 03:00, John Rumm wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news.../8719851/Elect....

Does it seem to anyone else that some details are missing from that
article?

You mean how did the thing start moving in exactly the right way to go
up his arse? Screams stupid workplace prank goes horribly wrong to me....

Yup. Usually those "things up bottoms" stories are misguided solo
sexual activities. But this one sounds like an idiot nearly killed
someone with an airline.

Yes. Exactly so. I remember a similar case from years ago. Victim of
the joke died.
Also whoever heard of a tools airline running at 300psi?

Huge wrote:
On 2011-08-25, Clive wrote:
On 25/08/2011 03:00, John Rumm wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-accident.html

You mean how did the thing start moving in exactly the right way to go
up his arse? Screams stupid workplace prank goes horribly wrong to me...

Precisely. And a dismissable offence in most places.

I don't think I'd be holding back from dobbing-in my "mates" in his
situation.

However 'Sarah added: "I've been left to care for a husband, a young son
and I'm also heavily pregnant' the accident was 13 months ago, so it's
not like he's had no fun all year ...

On 25/08/2011 08:26, Andy Burns wrote:


However 'Sarah added: "I've been left to care for a husband, a young son
and I'm also heavily pregnant' the accident was 13 months ago, so it's
not like he's had no fun all year ...

Assuming that the baby is *his*!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember John Rumm
saying something like:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-accident.html

Does it seem to anyone else that some details are missing from that
article?

Aye, an airline just leapt up his arse?
Some utter **** played a 'joke' on him.

"Huge" wrote in message On 25/08/2011 03:00,
John Rumm wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-accident.html


It does also justify the advice about not using an air line to "clean
yourself off" after completing a dusty task. This was a common practice
when I was a lad, and we used to scorn the advice of the old hands that it
was dangerous!

Alan

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-accident.html

Does it seem to anyone else that some details are missing from that
article?

like the name of the "no win no fee" solicitors they are obviously using to
gain 100% of the compensation? ... sadly seems all areas of all their poor
lives have been affected (oh except he can drive comfortably and you may see
him eating a large meal from time to time perhaps out at a nice restaurant?-
"all the rest is ruined gov" cough cough.....hand out....)

FFS
Jim K

In article , Jim K
writes
"John Rumm" wrote in message
news:l86dnbmas5ubMMjTnZ2dnUVZ8ladnZ2d@brightview. co.uk...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...1/Electrician-
inflated-by-pressurised-air-which-shot-up-his-bottom-in-bizarre-factory-accident.html

Does it seem to anyone else that some details are missing from that
article?

like the name of the "no win no fee" solicitors they are obviously using to
gain 100% of the compensation? ... sadly seems all areas of all their poor
lives have been affected (oh except he can drive comfortably and you may see
him eating a large meal from time to time perhaps out at a nice restaurant?-
"all the rest is ruined gov" cough cough.....hand out....)

FFS

Yeah, apart from the ruptured colon and the use of a stoma for year I'm
sure he's absolutely fine.

FFS indeed.
--
fred
FIVE TV's superbright logo - not the DOG's, it's ********

fred wrote:

Jim K wrote:

FFS

Yeah, apart from the ruptured colon and the use of a stoma for year I'm
sure he's absolutely fine.

FFS indeed.

Well, I might be tempted to believe there's an element of "Don't bother
sueing the person who did it, they won't have much money" about it,
followed quickly by "Why not sue your employer instead? They'll be
insured for it" ...

On Aug 25, 4:32*pm, Andy Burns wrote:
fred wrote:
Jim K wrote:

FFS

Yeah, apart from the ruptured colon and the use of a stoma for year I'm
sure he's absolutely fine.

FFS indeed.

Well, I might be tempted to believe there's an element of "Don't bother
sueing the person who did it, they won't have much money" about it,
followed quickly by "Why not sue your employer instead? They'll be
insured for it" ...

Yes - and that is the nature of being an employer.

Don't hire ****s/monkeys that can't behave responsibly.

Whilst I think there are far too many burdens on employers - they
should rightly be properly insured against serious injuries to
employees.

wrote:
On Aug 25, 4:00 am, Clive George wrote:
On 25/08/2011 03:00, John Rumm wrote:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news.../8719851/Elect...
Does it seem to anyone else that some details are missing from that
article?
You mean how did the thing start moving in exactly the right way to go
up his arse? Screams stupid workplace prank goes horribly wrong to me...

Yup. Usually those "things up bottoms" stories are misguided solo
sexual activities. But this one sounds like an idiot nearly killed
someone with an airline.

Someone did kill someone that exact way a few years back.

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:32:09 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:
Well, I might be tempted to believe there's an element of "Don't bother
sueing the person who did it, they won't have much money" about it,
followed quickly by "Why not sue your employer instead? They'll be
insured for it" ...

I think it's called "vicarious liability".

On 25/08/2011 14:02, Alan (BigAl) wrote:
wrote in message On 25/08/2011 03:00,
John Rumm wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...tthat/8719851/
Electrician-inflated-by-pressurised-air-which-shot-up-his-
bottom-in-bizarre-factory-accident.html


It does also justify the advice about not using an air line to "clean
yourself off" after completing a dusty task. This was a common practice
when I was a lad, and we used to scorn the advice of the old hands that it
was dangerous!

Alan

I think that the problem with dusting yourself off with an airline is
more generally that a high pressure / high velocity jet of air can blast
air through the skin causing severe bruising and swelling (not as many
think getting air into the bloodstream and causing an embolism). Proper
dust-off nozzles are designed to give a low velocity jet and IIRC, they
have holes so that if you press then right up against your skin, the air
pressure cannot get too high.

SteveW

"Alan (BigAl)" wrote in message
news

"Huge" wrote in message On 25/08/2011
03:00, John Rumm wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-accident.html


It does also justify the advice about not using an air line to "clean
yourself off" after completing a dusty task. This was a common practice
when I was a lad, and we used to scorn the advice of the old hands that it
was dangerous!

Alan


My neighbor often lets his 6 yr old play with his airline outside ....
blasting pieces of gravel around his (not yet laid) drive, he is often
blasting dust, water, trying to launch things tec.
Worries me ... but his father sees no wrong.

On 25/08/2011 21:38, Steve Walker wrote:
On 25/08/2011 14:02, Alan (BigAl) wrote:
wrote in message On 25/08/2011 03:00,
John Rumm wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...tthat/8719851/
Electrician-inflated-by-pressurised-air-which-shot-up-his-
bottom-in-bizarre-factory-accident.html


It does also justify the advice about not using an air line to "clean
yourself off" after completing a dusty task. This was a common practice
when I was a lad, and we used to scorn the advice of the old hands
that it
was dangerous!

Alan

I think that the problem with dusting yourself off with an airline is
more generally that a high pressure / high velocity jet of air can blast
air through the skin causing severe bruising and swelling (not as many
think getting air into the bloodstream and causing an embolism). Proper
dust-off nozzles are designed to give a low velocity jet and IIRC, they
have holes so that if you press then right up against your skin, the air
pressure cannot get too high.

Indeed - common sense applies. The vented nozzles used a distance from
the skin and away from the eyes etc are ok. A hard point jet blow head
could on the other hand be quite nasty if you do daft stuff with it.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Steve Walker wrote:

I think that the problem with dusting yourself off with an airline is
more generally that a high pressure / high velocity jet of air can blast
air through the skin causing severe bruising and swelling

One of the problems in industrial environments is that the use of an
airline for blowing dust off the skin can result in the injection of
dust particles subcutaneously. Powderject systems, for example, are used
in mass vaccination and are simply a high pressure spray of vaccine
through the epidermis. This shows that air pressure can be sufficient to
push material through the upper layers of the skin.

When I worked in a cotton mill for a holiday job, several decades ago,
some workers suffered from a range of skin infections and dermatitis
associated with the use of airlines for skin cleaning. This was
attributed to them blasting surface dirt deeper into their skin.

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:

On 25/08/2011 21:38, Steve Walker wrote:
.... Proper
dust-off nozzles are designed to give a low velocity jet and IIRC, they
have holes so that if you press then right up against your skin, the air
pressure cannot get too high.

Indeed - common sense applies. The vented nozzles used a distance from
the skin and away from the eyes etc are ok. A hard point jet blow head
could on the other hand be quite nasty if you do daft stuff with it.

Hey -- I even hurt the tip of my finger a few months ago with an
airspray can -- the sort used to dust out keyboards ... which is what I
was doing, and caught the end of the fingers of my left hand. Stung like
hell, and I thought it was going to stay numb.


As for "employer liability" [in this case]: why don't judges in this
country tell people [solicitors] who are taking the **** to go take a
jump, instead of poring carefully over the letters of the law? There
used to be such a thing as the spirit of the law -- now they only seem
willing to apply the letter. (On the off-chance that someone might sue
them I suppose ...)

J.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:29:04 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:




It does also justify the advice about not using an air line to "clean
yourself off" after completing a dusty task. This was a common practice
when I was a lad, and we used to scorn the advice of the old hands
that it
was dangerous!

Alan

Indeed - common sense applies. The vented nozzles used a distance from
the skin and away from the eyes etc are ok. A hard point jet blow head
could on the other hand be quite nasty if you do daft stuff with it.

A daft thing I was doing when I was young was putting an impeller from
some broken air driven tool on my finger and then spinning it up to
many thousand revs with an air jet and then slipping it off so it ran
quickly across the floor.
It was brass or bronze about 2"dia and weighed around a Pound.
One of the older chaps asked me what would happen to my finger if the
central bearing through which the finger was poked decided to seize,I
stopped that lark immediately. Apparently it was not an unheard of
instance when similar games were done with a ball race spun up on a
finger by various means.

G.Harman

Another John wrote:
In articleOsKdnfwDxJZmR8vTnZ2dnUVZ7o6dnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk,
John wrote:

On 25/08/2011 21:38, Steve Walker wrote:
... Proper
dust-off nozzles are designed to give a low velocity jet and IIRC, they
have holes so that if you press then right up against your skin, the air
pressure cannot get too high.

Indeed - common sense applies. The vented nozzles used a distance from
the skin and away from the eyes etc are ok. A hard point jet blow head
could on the other hand be quite nasty if you do daft stuff with it.

Hey -- I even hurt the tip of my finger a few months ago with an
airspray can -- the sort used to dust out keyboards ... which is what I
was doing, and caught the end of the fingers of my left hand. Stung like
hell, and I thought it was going to stay numb.

Probably because it was trifluroethane (r134a) which is a refrigerant
and can freeze your finger if you hold the can upside down and liquid
comes out.




As for "employer liability" [in this case]: why don't judges in this
country tell people [solicitors] who are taking the **** to go take a
jump, instead of poring carefully over the letters of the law? There
used to be such a thing as the spirit of the law -- now they only seem
willing to apply the letter. (On the off-chance that someone might sue
them I suppose ...)

J.

On Aug 26, 12:29*am, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/08/2011 21:38, Steve Walker wrote:









On 25/08/2011 14:02, Alan (BigAl) wrote:
wrote in message On 25/08/2011 03:00,
John Rumm wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...tthat/8719851/
* Electrician-inflated-by-pressurised-air-which-shot-up-his-
* bottom-in-bizarre-factory-accident.html

It does also justify the advice about not using an air line to "clean
yourself off" after completing a dusty task. This was a common practice
when I was a lad, and we used to scorn the advice of the old hands
that it
was dangerous!

Alan

I think that the problem with dusting yourself off with an airline is
more generally that a high pressure / high velocity jet of air can blast
air through the skin causing severe bruising and swelling (not as many
think getting air into the bloodstream and causing an embolism). Proper
dust-off nozzles are designed to give a low velocity jet and IIRC, they
have holes so that if you press then right up against your skin, the air
pressure cannot get too high.

Indeed - common sense applies. The vented nozzles used a distance from
the skin and away from the eyes etc are ok. A hard point jet blow head
could on the other hand be quite nasty if you do daft stuff with it.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| * * * * *Internode Ltd - *http://www.internode.co.uk* * * * * *|
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| * * * *John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk * * * * * * *|
\================================================= ================/

AIUI one of the problems is the vapourised lubricants used in
industrial airlines will end up on the skin (and to some extent in the
skin), and may lead to dermatitis.

On Aug 25, 6:21*pm, " wrote:
Whilst I think there are far too many burdens on employers - they
should rightly be properly insured against serious injuries to
employees.

Where employee also includes 1) unpaid training or 2) working for free
prior to employment. Some companies and institutions use such as a
"free prefix" in return for giving them the job.

In such claims there should be an examination of whether the claimant
had acted irresponsibly, and as a result have the claim reduced by
1-99% as a result. This does happen on the larger cases, but smaller
ones are often settled out of court simply in view of the costs.

On 27/08/2011 06:24, wrote:
On Aug 26, 12:29 am, John wrote:
On 25/08/2011 21:38, Steve Walker wrote:









On 25/08/2011 14:02, Alan (BigAl) wrote:
wrote in message On 25/08/2011 03:00,
John Rumm wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...tthat/8719851/
Electrician-inflated-by-pressurised-air-which-shot-up-his-
bottom-in-bizarre-factory-accident.html

It does also justify the advice about not using an air line to "clean
yourself off" after completing a dusty task. This was a common practice
when I was a lad, and we used to scorn the advice of the old hands
that it
was dangerous!

Alan

I think that the problem with dusting yourself off with an airline is
more generally that a high pressure / high velocity jet of air can blast
air through the skin causing severe bruising and swelling (not as many
think getting air into the bloodstream and causing an embolism). Proper
dust-off nozzles are designed to give a low velocity jet and IIRC, they
have holes so that if you press then right up against your skin, the air
pressure cannot get too high.

Indeed - common sense applies. The vented nozzles used a distance from
the skin and away from the eyes etc are ok. A hard point jet blow head
could on the other hand be quite nasty if you do daft stuff with it.

AIUI one of the problems is the vapourised lubricants used in
industrial airlines will end up on the skin (and to some extent in the
skin), and may lead to dermatitis.

Quite possibly, although whether you would get any more exposure than
you would during normal use of an air tool anyway where you are sharing
space with its exhaust.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:
On 27/08/2011 06:24, wrote:
AIUI one of the problems is the vapourised lubricants used in
industrial airlines will end up on the skin (and to some extent in the
skin), and may lead to dermatitis.

Quite possibly, although whether you would get any more exposure than
you would during normal use of an air tool anyway where you are sharing
space with its exhaust.


The difference would be due to the speed of the particles in the
aerosol. Stuff drifting round at random han't got the energy to enter
the skin, while particles coming from a relatively high pressure source
directed at the skin will.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 27/08/2011 16:14, John Williamson wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
On 27/08/2011 06:24, wrote:
AIUI one of the problems is the vapourised lubricants used in
industrial airlines will end up on the skin (and to some extent in the
skin), and may lead to dermatitis.

Quite possibly, although whether you would get any more exposure than
you would during normal use of an air tool anyway where you are
sharing space with its exhaust.


The difference would be due to the speed of the particles in the
aerosol. Stuff drifting round at random han't got the energy to enter
the skin, while particles coming from a relatively high pressure source
directed at the skin will.

Depends on the distance and the type of tool. The exhaust from a nail
gun if it hits you is not dissimilar from say a blow head pointed at you
from 2' away.

(having said that, dusting clothing it probably more useful than skin
anyway - or in my case, a quick puff to blow the dust off my specs (not
while wearing them!))


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 25/08/2011 18:21, wrote:
On Aug 25, 4:32 pm, Andy wrote:
fred wrote:
Jim wrote:

FFS

Yeah, apart from the ruptured colon and the use of a stoma for year I'm
sure he's absolutely fine.

FFS indeed.

Well, I might be tempted to believe there's an element of "Don't bother
sueing the person who did it, they won't have much money" about it,
followed quickly by "Why not sue your employer instead? They'll be
insured for it" ...

Yes - and that is the nature of being an employer.

Don't hire ****s/monkeys that can't behave responsibly.

Whilst I think there are far too many burdens on employers - they
should rightly be properly insured against serious injuries to
employees.

The requirements are a bit wider than that, insurance usually has to
cover employees, visitors and members of the general public.

SteveW

On 27/08/2011 18:26, John Rumm wrote:
On 27/08/2011 16:14, John Williamson wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
On 27/08/2011 06:24, wrote:
AIUI one of the problems is the vapourised lubricants used in
industrial airlines will end up on the skin (and to some extent in the
skin), and may lead to dermatitis.

Quite possibly, although whether you would get any more exposure than
you would during normal use of an air tool anyway where you are
sharing space with its exhaust.


The difference would be due to the speed of the particles in the
aerosol. Stuff drifting round at random han't got the energy to enter
the skin, while particles coming from a relatively high pressure source
directed at the skin will.

Depends on the distance and the type of tool. The exhaust from a nail
gun if it hits you is not dissimilar from say a blow head pointed at you
from 2' away.

(having said that, dusting clothing it probably more useful than skin
anyway - or in my case, a quick puff to blow the dust off my specs (not
while wearing them!))


Always assuming you have a quick puff standing nearby :-)


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk